Talk:Pure-blood
"Blood" in "pure-blood" should not be capitalised. Check out Chamber of Secrets, when Malfoy gives that as the password to the Slytherin common room, he says "Oh, yeah — pure-blood!" I've never seen it capitalised anywhere in the books. Hermione1980 20:41, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Then I guess a move would be in order. Except I think there is a redirect to here, so it might just have to be a copy and paste and lose the history. That's fine with me. Speaking of capitalisation, is it Muggle, or muggle? And does that fit with muggle-born etc.? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) ::It's Muggle and Muggle-born, pure-blood but Mudblood (gasp! not a nice word!). Let me see about that move… Hermione1980 21:02, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) :::Moved. Hermione1980 21:03, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::::Thanks... Oh, and sorry bout the unsigned post above... I went ahead and signed it with no timestamp. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:08, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) Half-Blood versus Pure-Blood Many times on many articles, it has come up of the debate between half-blood/pure-blood. And it is never resolved, so once and for all, here we should have the final discussion: A half-blood is defined as: A witch or wizard with at least one wizarding parent but at least one Muggle parent or grandparent. A pure-blood is defined as: A witch or wizard of 'pure' wizarding ancestry, without any Muggle ancestors whatsoever as far as can be determined. This is very contradictory however. For children like the Potter children (James II, Albus, and Lily II), there is no distinct blood status for them. They do have muggles in their ancestry, but all of their parents and grandparents are magical (argue that Lily is a muggleborn until the cows come home, but she's still a witch, and therefore defined as one). They don't fully fit into pure-blood, and most definately not half-blood. I think the problem here is the definitions on the Lexicon given for Half-Blood, Muggleborn, and Blood Traitor (to some extent and even squibs to a certain extent) are defined so technically, but pure-blood is defined as something a pure-blood-ist thinks. Which has no technical way to distinguish precision, because Jo has mentioned that even pure-blood families have some muggle distantly in them. Therefore, I move that we distinguish pure-blood-ism as "any witch or wizard born to two magical parents, and have four magical grandparents" otherwise, characters such as James Potter II, Albus Severus Potter, and Lily Potter II have no blood distinction and there will forever be a 'half a dozen one, six the other" fight. Either way, we need to fully exact our definitions, because sticking with the Lexicon %100 clearly isn't working since, like the Bible, it contradicts itself in places.--Silverdrama 05:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) :I agree that the Lexicon definitions are rather inconsistent in that regard. But I still think that Harry and Ginny's children would be half-bloods based on JKR's statement on blood purity. I'll quote and break down why: ::"The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices." :::This makes any distinction between what extremists think and what other people think moot. The definitions were invented by people who are prejudiced; they are the ones who care about distinguishing individuals based on blood in the first place. ::"As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance..." :::Again, he would be one of those people who is concerned with blood distinctions, hence he would know them well. ::"...a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard..." :::I take this as meaning that, in determining blood purity, a Muggle-born is treated the same as a Muggle. Because prejudiced wizards -- those who created the defintiions -- see a Muggle-born as basically the same as a Muggle. They might have magic, but they're still "unclean" (hence the term "Mudblood"). This is well illustrated by a scene in Chapter 9 of Goblet of Fire, during the Death Eaters' riot at the Quidditch World Cup: :::::"Granger, they're after Muggles," said Malfoy. "D' you want to be showing off your knickers in midair? Because if you do, hang around ... they're moving this way, and it would give us all a laugh." :::::"Hermione's a witch!" Harry snarled. :::::"Have it your own way, Potter," said Malfoy, grinning maliciously. "If you think they can't spot a Mudblood, stay where you are." :::This makes it clear that people like the Malfoys (again, those who came up with the definitions) clearly don't consider Muggle-borns to be "real" wizards and witches. Thus, having even one grandparent that was Muggle or Muggle-born makes you less than "pure". To go back to Rowling's statement in comparing blood purity to the Nazis' racial definitions: ::"A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda." :To further support the point that pure-bloods need to have entirely magical heritage more than two generations back are what we know about various pure-blood families. The House of Black's family tree dates back to the Middle Ages. Ernie Macmillan claims to be descended from nine generations of pure-bloods. The Malfoys are pure-blood at least as far back as the 17th century (when Brutus Malfoy lived). This all suggests that pure-bloods require many more than two generations of entirely magical heritage. :Furthermore, it's notable that pure-bloods who care about their heritage will only marry fellow pure-bloods. Marrying a Muggle or a Muggle-born are equally grounds for being disowned (the Blacks disowned both Isla and Andromeda for marrying a Muggle and a Muggle-born, respectively). They don't even appear to permit marriage to a half-blood, presuambly because half-bloods still have known Muggle ancestry and would thus still be "polluting" the bloodline. :As Rowling has said, no one is really "pure". The families that claim to be "merely cross Muggles and Squibs off the family tree and pretend that they didn't exist". But there is a considerable difference from families like the Blacks, who are only magical in ancestry for at least several generations and who remove not only any non-purebloods who marry into the family, but also any "blood traitors", from their family tree, and families like Harry's, who make no effort to pretend they don't have Muggle-borns and Muggles in their family. :To sum up, from what we can extrapolate from Rowling's statements on the subject and from the books, it seems that pure-bloods are those who claim to have no Muggle ancestry whatsoever -- or, at least, none that can be traced for many generations back. Half-bloods are basically anyone who has both magical and Muggle heritage, which makes sense, considering that "most wizards these days are half-blood anyway" (according to Ron in Chamber of Secrets) and that pure-bloods are dying out. Oread (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ::Another thing to add -- Rowling drew parallels between the Death Eaters' prejudice and the Anti-Semitism of the Nazis, commenting that they used "precisely the same warped logic". The Nazis persecuted people with even a single Jewish grandparent -- even if that grandparent had not been a practicing Jew, or had converted to another religion. Because they considered Jews to be a "race" -- i.e. it was a matter of ethnicity, something that is innate and fixed. It seems to be the same way prejudiced pure-bloods consider Muggle-borns: even though they can use magic, they were still born to Muggles, they still have Muggle blood. Oread (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ::Do Pure Bloods mind Half Bloods as much as Mudbloods? I thought that they didn't mind Half Bloods, which is why a lot of them followed He Who Must Not Be Named. Also, what was Voldemort's opinion about Squibs and Half Breeds and non human sentients? And did Voldemort mind Mudbloods more than Muggles? 04:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Harry and Ginny's children most certainly should be listed as pure-bloods. Both of their parents are wizards, both maternal grandparents were pure-bloods, as was their paternal grandfather. Yes, apparently their paternal grandmother was mudblooded, but her tainted blood is far enough back in their history that there is no need to blame them for it. Anyone who doubts their blood purity is obviously jealous of a blood traitor. JK55092 01:35, July 10, 2012 (UTC) :::There is a degree of prejudice. Remember that Bella calls Harry a "filthy half-blood" multiple times, but they were accepted more so that Muggle-borns. Voldemort seems to equate Muggle-borns with Muggles, unless their power is attractive to him. --JKoch (Owl Me!) 04:59, August 28, 2010 (UTC) ::: Luna Lovegood I don't know if I can add Lovegood family as Pureblood family because Luna Lovegood is for sure that she is not muggleborn, more likely pureblood witch like Weasley family, Black family, Malfoy family etc.. We for sure know the fact that Luna's father Xeno is known as editor of Quibbler in the Wizarding World, and her mom is interested in experimenting with random spells before she died. It suggests that Luna is not Muggleborn witch. Is it ok to add Lovegood family as pureblood later on? 10:42, January 5, 2011 (UTC) No, it isn´t. As she could have a muggle grandparent, or another muggle ancestor.--Rodolphus 10:47, January 5, 2011 (UTC) You mean we don't know if she is half-blood or pure-blood, right? If xeno or mrs.lovegood is half-blood wizard, this would have made luna half-blood, right? 18:30, June 5, 2011 (UTC) Inbreeding causes "diminished magical capability"? This article says "Many pure-blood families, such as the Blacks and Gaunts, practice marrying cousins in order to maintain their pure-blood status … This practice has been known to cause problems as families become inbred; for example, the Gaunts showed signs of violent tendencies, mental instability, and even diminished magical capability." Where in HBP is it shown and/or stated that the Gaunts showed diminished magical capability? The only example I can think of is Merope, and she showed diminished capability because she was living in constant fear, and possibly from being uneducated — there's no clear indication that it was due to inbreeding. Morfin seemed pretty adept with a wand, as he jinxed Tom Riddle Sr. and hexed Bob Ogden. There's no evidence that I can think of that inbreeding diminishes magical capability at all, or that the Gaunts showed signs of this. Can anyone provide any examples? 02:40, October 16, 2011 (UTC) I agree, the only possible evidence that inbreeding may cause diminished magical capability is if the offspring had a mental disability preventing their learning capability. However, this would not affect their "magical capability" as they would still be able to demonstrate their magic but in less refined forms. For example, Walburga and Orion Black married despite being second cousins and produced Sirius and Regulus, wizards who are not shown to have diminished magical capabilities (especially since Sirius is repeatedly noted as being one of the most talented students at Hogwarts during his time). 05:28, March 27, 2012 (UTC) Pure-blood - what does it mean? Round 2 So in considering the blood-status of the Fleamont family, I went back and re-read all the pure-blood writings by JKR. To revisit: The clearest definition appears to be that a wizard is pure-blood if they do not have a muggle, or muggle-born, parent or grandparent. On her old site, JKR said that the "Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda." This does not mean that the parents and grandparents themselves have to be pure-blood, just that they are not muggles or muggle-borns (aka Mudbloods). This would explain why marrying a Malfoy is still a "respectable pure-blood marriage",( ) even though "many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree." As "from the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born", this was enough to maintain a pure-blood family by the 1930's (as the Malfoys are a Sacred Twenty-Eight family). I'm not sure if "the small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges"(PM-pureblood) would accept this, but the House of Black seems to be equally fanatical in their "pure-blood mania."(OOTP6) Overall it appears that to say, like Marvolo Gaunt, that your family is "pure-blood all the way" ( ) is that everyone who married in did not have muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents - not that there are no muggles or muggle-borns anywhere in their family tree. Note, this does not mean that all members of pure-blood families are pure-bloods themselves, just that they and their parents and grandparents are not muggles or muggle-borns. This has implications for members of pure-blood families like Crouch, Nott, etc... And yes, this leads to odd conclusions like a wizard being pure-blood even with all half-blood parents and grandparents. To speculate, maybe they thought the wizarding blood added up somehow and drove off the lesser muggle blood. More likely, they just had to admit that far enough back, every wizarding family has some muggle ancestry. While does have this opening definition: "The term 'pure-blood' refers to a family or individual without Muggle (non-magic) blood", this statement is immediately undercut in the same article as "As Muggle/wizard marriage had been common for centuries, those now self-describing as pure-bloods were unlikely to have any higher proportion of wizarding ancestors than those who did not. To call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent ('I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible') than a statement of biological fact." From a pragmatic standpoint this leaves us that for any pure-blood wizard, we can only infer that their parents and grandparents were not muggles or muggle-borns, not that they were pure-blooded or that there is a line of pure-blood that runs through the family. Also, all members of a pure-blood family cannot be inferred to be pure-blooded themselves. Hope that long-winded explanation made sense. Anyone have other thoughts or ideas? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:59, May 5, 2017 (UTC) : Harry's children are highly regarded across every Harry Potter related fansite as being half-blood. Therefore, the children of a pure-blood and a half-blood with a muggle or muggle-born parent are only half-blood as well. The lineage is not far back enough for it to be cancelled out when they have muggle or muggle born grandparents. : What we need to know how is far back does your muggle lineage have to be in order for society to believe it no longer matters and is now diluted enough by magical blood? The Malfoys, for example, are good at hiding it, which means it was so long ago. So long that your grandparents are pure-blood and / or half-blood, does it matter if your parent is half-blood as well? :That brings me back to where it says to "call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent ('I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible') than a statement of biological fact." : Therefore, marrying a half-blood is not as terrible and it is opinion rather than scientific fact based on blood dilution that decides what blood status you are. At least that is my take from the many sources! -- Kates39 (talk) 20:33, May 5, 2017 (UTC) ::Harry's children are half-blood because they have a muggle-born grandparent - Lily is the single grandparent that "pollutes their blood". But interestingly, if Lily Luna were to have kids with Scorpius Malfoy, for instance, those kids would be pure-blood as their parents and grandparents (Harry & Ginny, Draco & Astoria) are all not muggles or muggle-borns. :: makes it clear that to maintain a pure-blood status as a family, you have to just not marry muggles or muggle-borns (which they have done for about 240 years (1689-1930s) by the publishing of the Sacred Twenty-Eight) Half-bloods are ok, so not all members of pure-blood family have to be a pure-blood by this standard; just not muggles or muggle-borns. ::The pure-blood fanatic families (Gaunt, Lestrange, Black) take it further that anyone who marries into the family must pure-blood (that is have no muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents). Their family tree is just more padded from muggle blood (by an extra two generations at each inter-marriage) than other pure-blood families like the Malfoys, but not completely separated from it. ::While I agree that at the time of adoption of the International Statute of Secrecy, pure-blood was more of a political ideology (as marriage with muggles was commonplace), the pure-blood families since then have developed a system of distinguishing who is and isn't pure-blooded based on muggles or muggle-borns as parents and grandparents. ::This system allows us to say that anyone who married into the House of Black (and was not blasted off the tapestry) is a pure-blood, so their parents and grandparents must be pure-blood or half-blood. However we cannot say that all members of a non-fanatical pure-blood family (e.g. Crouch) are themselves a pure-blood - they may be half-blood and the family still be considered pure-blood like the Malfoys. ::This will entail some clean-up, but this seems to be the only interpretation that accounts for the Malfoy family status as pure-blood, but with known half-bloods, and the distinction needed for the Blacks/Gaunts/Lestrange's families emphasis on pure-blood-only marriages. As almost all the Blood status info I've looked at is unsourced, this will at least provide some evidence and logic for drawing a conclusion that fits the known facts. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:23, May 5, 2017 (UTC) ::: One big problem - we don't know how many branches the Malfoy Family tree has. All we know is that Draco's descent from Armand is 100% pure-blood. For all we know, Armand had a second child who formed a new line and that line eventually became half-blood, making "many a half blood" appear on the family tree. We cannot make any changes as we don't know all the family branches. Also, your speaking on having a half-blood grandparent makes the grandchild pure is flawed as there is all the muggle ancestry of the half-blood to pollute the gene pool, even if it is distant. It's why Harry's grandchildren will be half-blood and their children half-blood and their children half-blood and so on and so forth. Lily's parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents and so on and so forth will forever "pollute" the Potter bloodline, making them forever half-blood. It's flawed thinking to think like you did -- all and any "non pure" blood, no matter how far back, renders a family half blood (i.e half muggle blood somewhere in their ancestry) forevermore as that is what the Nazis used; all and any Jewish blood polluted the bloodline, even if it was 20 generations back. Thus, "pure-blood" means no muggle/half-blood at all in the pure-blood's ancestry. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:58, May 6, 2017 (UTC) :::: The evidence against this interpretation is . The Malfoys were known to have muggle ancestry (pre-1689) and married many a half-bloods, but are still considered a pure-blood family. To keep their pure-blood status they just had to not marry any muggles or muggle-borns for a couple centuries. :::: If you have an example of anyone stating that "any muggle ancestry" makes one a half-blood then please share. It is possible JKR made a tangled mess of this, but on my re-read her emphasis is repeatedly on tracing muggles and muggle-borns, not half-bloods, when determining what it means to be pure-blood. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:10, May 6, 2017 (UTC) While that is true, as I've said; we do not know if Lucius has a cousin who married a half-blood and thus had a half-blood child. We cannot be 100%. As for who said it -- J.K. did: a single "Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda." By that logic, you have all the Jewish ancestry for hundreds of years (which makes the grandparent Jewish in the first place!) polluting the gene pool. And it's the same with half-blood. You have one half-blood witch/wizard/squib, who marries a pure-blood and the child is half-blood (see Harry and Ginny as an example); any children from the half-blood will also be half-blood. As will their child, and their child, and their child, and their child, and their child, and their child, and their child and you get the idea. Down, down, down goes the half-blood gene. Thus, "pure-blood" families have nothing but pure in their ancestry, but to accommodate for the PM thing, see the beginning of this statement; there could be other branches of the family - both here and in France (as we don't know if Armand came with family or not!) - that can fit the half-blood bill. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:18, May 6, 2017 (UTC) :As I said, if you read , the adoption of pure blood ideals leads to: "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born. The family has, however, eschewed the somewhat dangerous practice of inter-marrying within such a small pool of pure-bloods that they become enfeebled or unstable, unlike a small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges, and many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree." : In order to be pure-blood, they just did not marry muggles or muggle-borns, half bloods have no bearing on their pure-blood status as a family. : Similarly, in , when placed on the Sacred Twenty-Eight pure-blood directory: "Most vocally indignant was the numerous Weasley family, which, in spite of its connections with almost every old wizarding family in Britain, was proud of its ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles. : They are emphasizing their relationships to Muggles, not half-bloods, as that determines the pure-blood status. : From JKR's old site, "Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents." :Again, JKR is focusing on Muggles parents and grandparents as determining blood-status. :The repeated emphasis in on Muggles and Muggle-borns, not half-bloods. If the Malfoy's can be considered a pure-blood family (not just Lucius, the family name itself) with known half-bloods and muggle ancestry, then muggle blood cannot be counted as forever corrupting the family name. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:41, May 6, 2017 (UTC) ::You are missing the point. The point is that Muggle blood pollutes the line correct? That's what it's saying with "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born." They emphasizes that Muggle or Muggle-born pollutes the line to make it half-blood, (which is how "many a half-blood appear on the Malfoy Family Tree"). ::Thus, by that, any Muggle or Muggle-born pollutes the line, meaning a half-blood who has Muggle or Muggle-born blood in them pollutes the line. So by that, Pure-blood = no muggle anywhere, whether it be parent or 456 generations back. One single muggle anywhere and bam! no longer pure at all. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:49, May 6, 2017 (UTC) :::Then how are the Malfoys a pure-blood family in the Sacred Twenty-Eight and part of a "respectable pure-blood marriage" to Narcissa Black? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:54, May 6, 2017 (UTC) ::: Simple -- the main line of the family from which Lucius, Draco, Abraxas and Armand form (as does anyone in between) has remained pure, but other members of the family who are not their ancestors, but related to them (aunt, uncle, cousin, ninth cousin twelve times removed, etc) can be the "many a half-blood" that appears on the tree. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:03, May 6, 2017 (UTC) :::: But that stipulation is never stated anywhere - you're adding it in to fit your conclusions. The Sacred Twenty-eight doesn't say the Abraxas line of Malfoys, etc, it lists the Malfoys as a family as pure-blood. The family name itself is pure-blood because they stopped marrying Muggles and Muggle-borns back in 1689, but having many a half-blood on the tree is fine. The very meaning of espousing pure-blood ideals back then was that "'I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible')" not I will avoiding marrying half-bloods. :::: I'd say you need to find an example where someone says that they are a half-blood simply because they have some muggle ancestor. All the half-bloods I can think of have a muggle or muggle-born parent or grandparent. Even the Weasleys are considered pure-blood, although they have known Muggles ancestors. I'll ping Seth to see if he has some learned insight, but although I once thought as you, in re-reading all the related info the emphasis on muggles and muggle-borns parents or grandparents became clear as the factor in determining pure-blood status. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:21, May 6, 2017 (UTC) :::::Harry himself is the example - his maternal grandmother and grandfather are muggle and he's half-blood. Thus, any muggle ancestry makes it impossible for "pure-blood" to be possible.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:43, May 6, 2017 (UTC) :::::: Harry is half-blood because of his muggle grandparents - JKR says this directly, not that he is half-blood because of other previous muggle ancestry (which the Potter family has) :::::: What you'd need is an example of someone who is said to be half-blood because of a muggle ancestor beyond their grandparents. But all the examples point to the contrary: The Weasleys have "ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles", but are pure-blood, the Malfoys married muggles or muggle-borns up till 1689, and still married half-bloods afterwards, but are pure-blood, the Potters occasionally married their muggle neighbors, but James Potter I was a pure-blood. These examples demonstrate that having muggle ancestry does not prevent a family from being pure-blood, as long as it is "far enough" back. From Harry, "far enough" appears to be beyond your grandparents for an individual to be considered a pure-blood. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:17, May 6, 2017 (UTC)